A federal judge has dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit challenging Indiana’s Senate Enrolled Act 202 (SEA 202), which mandates intellectual diversity at public colleges. Plaintiffs lacked standing and presented no actual enforcement actions, according to the court’s ruling. The decision preserves the law’s pro‑free‑speech framework without setting precedent on First Amendment protections in academia.
Indiana law now requires faculty at public universities to promote “intellectually diverse ideas” and free inquiry and includes reporting mechanisms tied to tenure and promotion. The suit, filed in July 2025 by three professors from Indiana University and Purdue University with backing from the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, alleged SEA 202 violates First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Judge Richard L. Young granted the state and trustees’ motions to dismiss, ruling that the challenge arrived too early and plaintiffs could not show actual harm or threatened enforcement.
Judge Young noted no university has instructed faculty to alter syllabi or teaching methods under the law, nor received any complaints leading to action against professors. Without concrete implementation or adverse effects, the case lacked ripeness. Ongoing policy revisions at Indiana University and Purdue further undermine legal grounds for the suit.
SEA 202, signed in 2024 and enacted last summer, quickly prompted over 50 complaint filings in the second half of that year. Most were deemed not substantial. A separate lawsuit, filed in August 2024 by different professors, was dismissed on similar procedural grounds by Judge Sarah Evans Barker due to lack of standing and ripeness.
State officials welcomed the ruling. Attorney General Todd Rokita expressed satisfaction that courts recognized the professors’ lack of standing. He underscored the law’s role in advancing ideological diversity and safeguarding free speech on public campuses. The ACLU of Indiana issued a statement expressing disappointment and said it would consider appeal, noting this decision hinges on timing rather than the substance of academic freedom concerns.
This outcome solidifies the status of SEA 202 as actionable university policy, not judicially challenged constitutional violation—at least until enforcement occurs. Without actual penalties or policy directives taken against faculty, constitutional discussion remains hypothetical.
